Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

News

​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.


That principle was tested again a few decades later in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents who weren't eligible to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Acts. The Supreme Court held that because he was born in the United States, he was a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. While birthright citizenship, especially as it pertains to parental status, was still challenged by the U.S. government through various repatriation efforts, Wong Kim Ark’s precedent remains the foundation for modern birthright citizenship to this day.

On his first day in office in January of 2025, President Trump issued an executive order that denied automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents were undocumented or in the country temporarily. The administration argued that those children weren't "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States under the 14th Amendment.

The executive order, which cites Dred Scott, argues that “the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”

The order was challenged in Trump v Barbara (2026), and in June of this year the Supreme Court rejected that argument. In a 6–3 ruling, the Court struck down the executive order and reaffirmed that the 14th Amendment protects birthright citizenship for children born in the United States, relying on the Constitution's text, specifically the Citizenship Clause, as well as the precedent set by United States v Wong Kim Ark.

In short, SCOTUS ruled: “Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.”

In other words, President Trump’s executive order was unconstitutional and the executive branch was not able to eliminate birthright citizenship for children of immigrants with the stroke of his pen; however, the story doesn’t end there.

On Aug 6, President Trump issued two new executive orders addressing birthright citizenship.

The first order, Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, attempts to identify categories of children who, according to the administration, fall outside the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment and the ruling as recognized by the Supreme Court. This is specified within four categories.

The 2nd order, Ending Birth Tourism, takes aim at what the administration calls “birth tourism,” or when a foreign national enters the States on a nonimmigrant visa specifically for the purpose of giving birth.

These orders leave the state of birthright citizenship in a confusing place across the country, one that we will dive into in the next episode of Gov’t Stuff No One Explained.

Gov't Stuff No One Explained #4: Ending birthright tourism? youtube.com


Britton Struthers-Lugo is a journalist and visual storyteller. She works as a Digital Content Producer across The Fulcrum and The Latino News Network.


Read More

​Christa Pike

Christa Pike in an undated photo.

(Tennessee Department of Correction/ZUMA Press/TNS)

How death penalty opponents share the blame for botched executions

“Botched” is a perfectly fine word for golf, cooking, or home repair. It seems inadequate for the taking of a life, even the life of Christa Pike, a heinous murderer.

In 1996, a jury found Pike guilty of the torture and murder of her Jobs Corps classmate, Colleen Slemmer. Pike was sentenced to death. In the 30 years since, her case has gone through at least seven major rounds of appeal and judicial review, including four petitions to the Supreme Court. All were rejected. This doesn’t even include the many more attempts to reopen or reverse her sentence that went nowhere. She is guilty, lawfully and rightly convicted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

President Donald Trump speaks before signing the Secure America Act in the Oval Office of the White House on June 10, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Federal Court Blocks Trump’s ‘Loyalty Question’ on Civil Service Job Applications

A court’s decision to block the Trump administration from including a “loyalty question” on federal job applications was a win not only for the nonpartisan civil service, but also for the communities public employees serve, said one labor leader whose union was among the plaintiffs in the case against the Office of Personnel Management.

Patrick Moran, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union, said Friday that the loyalty questions the OPM placed on job applications for public servants were a “blatantly illegal attempt to hire partisan cronies who would endanger our communities by putting politics before people, rather than dedicated, qualified public service workers.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less
American Flag, Capitol building and the United States Constitution

American Flag, Capitol building and the United States Constitution

Getty Images

Lawyers Must Reaffirm Their Oath to Defend the Constitution

Every lawyer admitted to practice in the United States takes a formal oath to support the Constitution and faithfully discharge the duties of the profession. In recent years, bar associations and courts around the country have held voluntary oath reaffirmation ceremonies, inviting lawyers to publicly renew their commitments and reaffirm the profession's responsibility to uphold the rule of law.

Between us, we have taken the oath eight times - having been admitted to practice law in six jurisdictions, across five states, and both having organized oath reaffirmation ceremonies in our respective Virginia hometowns.

Keep ReadingShow less